DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The previously issued 112a rejections as to claim 15 is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has been considered but are
moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Wang is maintained as prior art.
Applicant states “Wang does not disclose a window disposed above a light control layer and the display panel”. Examiner notes the claim recites “a window disposed on the light control layer”. The combination of Kim and Wang teach the claim as recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0221778 A1), hereafter “Kim”, and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2021/0132447 A1), hereafter “Shim”.
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel comprising a pixel defining film (⁋ [0046], 140, Fig. 3) and a light-emitting element (131-133/151-153/160), wherein the pixel defining film includes a pixel opening (area between 140), wherein the light-emitting element comprises a first electrode (131-133), a light-emitting layer (151-153), and a second electrode (160), and wherein the first electrode is at least partially exposed through the pixel opening (131-133 exposed in area between 140); and
a light control layer (170) comprising a pattern layer (⁋ [0064], 172a-172c) and a cover layer (173), wherein the pattern layer overlaps the pixel opening (172a-172c overlaps area between 140), and wherein the cover layer covers the pattern layer (173 covers sides of 172a-172c) and has a refractive index lower than that of the pattern layer (⁋ [0077]),
wherein:
the pattern layer comprises an upper surface (172c3), a lower surface (172c4) opposite to the upper surface and more adjacent to the display panel than the tipper surface, and a side surface (172c1) connecting the upper surface and the lower surface to each other (Fig. 3),
an angle between the side surface and the lower surface is an acute angle (A1 of Fig. 3 is shown as an acute angle).
Kim fails to teach wherein the side surface comprises a plurality of regions having different inclinations with respect to the lower surface.
Shim teaches a similar device with an optical film (OF, Fig. 6, OF) which includes pattern layers (RP1, ⁋ [0097]) having a side surface which contain regions having different inclinations (⁋ [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the different inclination angles as taught by Shim into the device of Kim for the expected benefit of a display device having enhanced viewing angle characteristics by including the optical film on the liquid crystal display panel (⁋ [0141]).
As to claim 3, Kim in view of Shim fails to teach wherein a maximum thickness of the pattern layer is about 1.5 micrometers to about 3.5 micrometers.
On the other hand, Examiner notes the Applicant has not specified a criticality to the dimensions.
If the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device: In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777.
As to claim 4, Kim in view of Shim teaches wherein:
the pixel opening comprises a first pixel opening, a second pixel opening, and a third pixel opening which have different areas from each other (Kim; ⁋ [0054]), and
the pattern layer comprises a first pattern corresponding to the first pixel opening, a second pattern corresponding to the second pixel opening, and a third pattern corresponding to the third pixel opening.
As to claim 5, Kim in view of Shim fails to teach wherein on a plane, a distance between an edge of each of the first to third patterns and an edge of a corresponding pixel opening among the first to third pixel openings is about 0.5 micrometers or more.
On the other hand, Examiner notes the Applicant has not specified a criticality to the dimensions.
If the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device: In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777.
As to claim 6, Kim in view of Shim fails to teach wherein, on a plane, a distance between an edge of the first pattern and an edge of the first pixel opening, a distance between an edge of the second pattern and an edge of the second pixel opening, and a distance between an edge of the third pattern and an edge of the third pixel are different from one another.
On the other hand, Examiner notes the Applicant has not specified a criticality to the dimensions.
If the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device: In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777.
As to claim 13, Kim in view of Shim teaches the display device of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein:
the refractive index of the cover layer is about 1.53 or less;
and the refractive index of the pattern layer (172a-172c) is about 1.6 or more (⁋ [0077], “1.5 to 1.9”).
Kim does not explicitly state that the refractive index of the cover layer (173) is 1.53 or less but it does state that the pattern layer (172a-172c) has a higher refractive index (“1.5 to 1.9”) than the cover layer (173). As a result, the cover layer (173) would have a refractive index of 1.5 or less.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 21, Kim teaches an electronic device comprising:
a display device (⁋ [0002]) including:
a display panel comprising a pixel defining film (⁋ [0046], 140, Fig. 3) and a light-emitting element (131-133/151-153/160), wherein the pixel defining film includes a pixel opening (area between 140), wherein the light-emitting element comprises a first electrode (131-133), a light-emitting layer (151-153), and a second electrode (160), and wherein the first electrode is at least partially exposed through the pixel opening (131-133 exposed in area between 140); and
a light control layer (170) comprising a pattern layer (⁋ [0064], 172a-172c) and a cover layer (173), wherein the pattern layer overlaps the pixel opening (172a-172c overlaps area between 140), and wherein the cover layer covers the pattern layer (173 covers sides of 172a-172c) and has a refractive index lower than that of the pattern layer (⁋ [0077]),
wherein:
the pattern layer comprises an upper surface (172c3), a lower surface (172c4) opposite to the upper surface and more adjacent to the display panel than the tipper surface, and a side surface (172c1) connecting the upper surface and the lower surface to each other (Fig. 3),
an angle between the side surface and the lower surface is an acute angle (A1 of Fig. 3 is shown as an acute angle).
Kim fails to teach wherein the side surface comprises a plurality of regions having different inclinations with respect to the lower surface.
Shim teaches a similar device with an optical film (OF, Fig. 6, OF) which includes pattern layers (RP1, ⁋ [0097]) having a side surface which contain regions having different inclinations (⁋ [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the different inclination angles as taught by Shim into the device of Kim for the expected benefit of a display device having enhanced viewing angle characteristics by including the optical film on the liquid crystal display panel (⁋ [0141]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim modified by Shim, and further in view of Son et al. (KR 20200071190 A), with US 2022/0121301 A1 as English translation, hereafter “Son”.
As to claim 7, Kim in view of Shim teaches the display device of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein the display panel further comprises an encapsulation layer (⁋ [0064], 171) disposed on the light- emitting element.
Kim modified by Shim fails to teach further comprising an input sensor disposed between the display panel and the light control layer,
wherein the input sensor comprises a first insulating layer, a first conductive layer, a second insulating layer, a second conductive layer, and a third insulating layer, wherein the first insulating layer is disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein the first conductive layer is disposed on the first insulating layer, wherein the second insulating layer is disposed on the first insulating layer and covers the first conductive layer, wherein the second conductive layer is disposed on the second insulating layer, and wherein the third insulating layer is disposed on the second insulating layer and covers the second conductive layer. and wherein the light control layer is disposed on the third insulating layer.
Son teaches a similar display device with an input sensor (⁋ [0056], ISL, Fig. 8) on the display panel which also contains an encapsulation layer (⁋ [0095], TFE) disposed on a light-emitting element (EL). The input sensor comprises a first insulating layer (⁋ [0131], IL1), a first conductive layer (CL1), a second insulating layer (IL2), a second conductive layer (CL2), and a third insulating layer (IL3), wherein the first insulating layer (IL1) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (TFE), wherein the first conductive layer (CL1) is disposed on the first insulating layer (IL1), wherein the second insulating layer (IL2) is disposed on the first insulating layer (IL1) and covers the first conductive layer, wherein the second conductive layer (CL2) is disposed on the second insulating layer (IL2), and wherein the third insulating layer (IL3) is disposed on the second insulating layer (IL2) and covers the second conductive layer (CL2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the input sensor as taught by Son into the display device of Kim and Shim as the light efficiency of the display device DD may be improved (⁋ [0147]).
Additionally, the combination of incorporating the structure of Son into Kim and Shim would result in the light control layer of Kim being disposed on the third insulating layer of Son.
As to claim 8, Kim in view of Shim teach the display device of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein the display panel further comprises an encapsulation layer (⁋ [0064], 171) disposed on the light- emitting element,
Kim and Shim fail to teach further comprising an input sensor disposed between the display panel and the light control layer,
wherein the input sensor comprises a first insulating layer, a first conductive layer-a second insulating layer, and a second conductive layer, wherein the first insulating layer is disposed on the encapsulation layer. wherein the first conductive layer is disposed on the first insulating layer, wherein the second insulating layer is disposed on the first insulating layer and covers the first conductive layer, and wherein the second conductive layer is disposed on the second insulating layer, and wherein the light control layer is disposed on the second insulating layer.
Son teaches a similar display device with an input sensor (⁋ [0056], ISL, Fig. 8) on the display panel which also contains an encapsulation layer (⁋ [0095], TFE) disposed on a light-emitting element (EL). The input sensor comprises a first insulating layer (⁋ [0131], IL1), a first conductive layer (CL1), a second insulating layer (IL2), and a second conductive layer (CL2), wherein the first insulating layer (IL1) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (TFE), wherein the first conductive layer (CL1) is disposed on the first insulating layer, wherein the second insulating layer (IL2) is disposed on the first insulating layer and covers the first conductive layer, and wherein the second conductive (CL2) layer is disposed on the second insulating layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the input sensor as taught by Son into the display device of Kim and Shim as the light efficiency of the display device DD may be improved (⁋ [0147]).
Additionally, the combination of incorporating the structure of Son into Kim and Shim would result in the light control layer of Kim being disposed on the third insulating layer of Son.
As to claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the pattern layer (172a-172c) covers at least a portion of the second conductive layer (CL2) taught by Son (wherein the pattern layer covers diagonally).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Shim, Son and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0341428 A1), hereafter “Lee”.
As to claim 10, Kim, Shim and Son fail to teach wherein the light control layer further comprises a light blocking pattern covering the second conductive layer.
Lee teaches a similar display device with a light blocking pattern (⁋ [0099], 140, Fig. 3) covering a conductive layer (⁋ [0124], SPL1+SPL2) of the sensing unit (130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the black matrix overlapping the conductive layers of touch sensors as taught by Lee into the display device of Kim, Shim and Son in order to hide them from viewers (⁋ [0129]).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim modified by Shim, and further in view of Cai (US 2022/0037622 A1), hereafter “Cai”.
As to claim 2, Kim and Shim fail to teach wherein, at a portion of the pattern layer at which a thickness from the lower surface to the side surface of the pattern layer is about 1/3 of a maximum thickness of the pattern layer, and wherein the angle formed by the lower surface with respect to a tangential direction of the side surface is about 65 degrees or less.
Cai teaches a similar display device with a pattern layer (⁋ [0035]) wherein the angle formed by the lower surface with respect to a tangential direction of the side surface is about 65 degrees or less (⁋ [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the angle of the pattern layer as taught by Cai into the display device of Kim and Shim the area of the first side surface 41 can be increased, so that more light propagating in a large-angle direction can be refracted through the first light extraction module 31 and then deflected in a small-angle direction (⁋ [0047]).
Additionally, it is in the purview of one skilled in the art that the side surface 41 and bottom surface 51 of Cai is a straight line and at any given angle taught by Cai i.e. 60°, there is a portion where the distance between both surfaces is 1/3 of the maximum thickness of its pattern layer. (Examiner also notes that the wording of claim 2 presents the thickness and angle limitations as two separate entities without relation but to advance prosecution Examiner assumes “wherein, at a portion” is in correlation to where the angle “is about 65 degrees or less”).
As to claim 11, Kim and Shim fail to teach further comprising a light blocking pattern disposed at least between the display panel and the cover layer or on an upper surface of the cover layer, wherein the light blocking pattern overlaps the pixel defining film.
Cai teaches a similar display device comprising a light blocking pattern (⁋ [0067], 8, Fig. 9) disposed between the display panel (⁋ [0034], 1+2+3) and the cover layer (⁋ [0035], 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the light blocking pattern as taught by Cai into the display device of Kim and Shim to ensure non-display structures including scan lines, data lines, and thin film transistors in an array substrate can be shielded, and mutual interference between light emitted from two adjacent light-emitting modules 2 having different colors can be avoided, thereby achieving display effect of the display panel (⁋ [0067]).
Additionally, Cai teaches the light blocking pattern 8 is between two adjacent first light extraction modules 31 (⁋ [0067]), in which the first light extraction modules 31 are shown to be over the light-emitting module 2, leaving the light blocking pattern 8 to be overlapping outside regions of the light-emitting module which is where the pixel defining film of Kim is located. As a result, the light blocking pattern of Cai would overlap the pixel defining film of Kim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim modified by Shim, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0109400 A1), hereafter “Kim ‘400”.
As to claim 12, Kim and Shim fail to teach further comprising:
a first light blocking pattern disposed between the display panel and the cover layer and comprising a first light blocking opening overlapping the pixel opening; and
a second light blocking pattern disposed on the cover layer and comprising a second light blocking opening overlapping the pixel opening,
wherein an area of the second light blocking opening is larger than an area of the first light blocking opening.
Kim ‘400 teaches a display device with an optical filter (⁋ [0050], 100, Fig. 2) over a light-emitting panel (200) with a first light blocking pattern (⁋ [0052], 154, Fig. 2) with an opening over the pixel area PA that emits light (⁋ [0047]), and a second light blocking pattern (152) disposed over the first light blocking pattern also with an opening over the pixel area PA that emits light. The bottom surface of 154 extends laterally further than 152 which would result in the openings of the first blocking pattern 152 having a larger area than the second blocking pattern 154.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate both the light blocking patterns as taught by Kim’400 into the display device of Kim and Shim to prevent light leakage from occurring in the display device (⁋ [0056]) and prevent the occurrence of color mixing between light converted by light-converting portions that neighbor each other (⁋ [0069]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wang et al. (US 11882752 B1), hereafter “Wang”, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0206296 A1), hereafter “Zhang”.
As to claim 16, Kim teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel comprising a pixel defining film (⁋ [0046], 140, Fig. 3) and a light-emitting element (131-133/151-153/160), wherein the pixel defining film comprises a pixel opening (area between 140), and wherein the light-emitting element comprises a first electrode (131-133), a light-emitting layer (151-153), and a second electrode (160), wherein the first electrode is at least partially exposed through the pixel opening (131-133 exposed in area between 140):
a light control layer (170) comprising a pattern layer (⁋ [0064], 172a-172c) and a cover layer (173), wherein the pattern layer overlaps the pixel opening (172a-172c overlaps area between 140), and wherein the cover layer covers the pattern layer (173 covers sides of 172a-172c) and has a refractive index lower than that of the pattern layer (⁋ [0077]).
Kim fails to teach a window disposed on the light control layer: and a window adhesive layer disposed between the light control layer and the window to couple the light control layer and the window to each other, wherein the difference in refractive indices between the cover layer and the window adhesive is about 0.1 or less.
Wang also teaches a display device with a display panel (Col. 5, Line 22, 14P), a window (Col. 7, Lines 50-62, 66) and adhesive (62) attached to an antireflection layer (60) containing alternating refractive index values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date incorporate the window, adhesive and index matching as taught by Wang into the display device of Kim to help suppress reflections between the interfaces of the display panel and the window (Col. 7, Lines 62-67).
Kim modified by Wang fail to teach wherein the difference in refractive indices between the cover layer and the window adhesive is about 0.1 or less.
Zhang teaches a similar display device wherein an adhesive is placed between an anti-reflection layer 80 and polarizing film 70 (⁋ [0024]) and a difference between a refractive index of the optically clear adhesive and the refractive index of the polarizing film layer 70 may be no greater than 0.15 (⁋ [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the refractive index difference of an adhesive and its neighboring layer as taught by Zhang into the device of Kim and Wang to reduce the loss of light when passing through the adhesive (⁋ [0058]). The reduction of light loss would maximize power and boost the brightness of the device.
Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 17, Kim in view of Shim teach the display device of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein:
the refractive index of the cover layer is about 1.53 or less;
and the refractive index of the pattern layer (172a-172c) is about 1.6 or more (⁋ [0077], “1.5 to 1.9”).
Kim does not explicitly state that the refractive index of the cover layer (173) is 1.53 or less but it does state that the pattern layer (172a-172c) has a higher refractive index (“1.5 to 1.9”) than the cover layer (173). As a result, the cover layer (173) would have a refractive index of 1.5 or less.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 14, Kim is the closest prior art and fails to teach wherein: each of the cover layer and the pattern layer comprises a polymer material, and
the cover layer further comprises at least one of a pigment or a dye dispersed in the polymer material.
As to claim 15, Kim is the closest prior art and fails to teach wherein: the display panel further comprises a first capping layer. a second capping layer, and an encapsulation layer, wherein the first capping layer is disposed on the second electrode, wherein the second capping layer is disposed on the first capping layer. and wherein the encapsulation layer is disposed on the second capping layer,
wherein each of the first capping layer and the second capping layer comprises an inorganic material, and
wherein the second capping layer comprise at least one of ytterbium, bismuth, or an alloy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARNELL HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARNELL HUNTER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights